Run an honest post-mortem on a lost deal before writing it off as "budget"

We lost this deal: Greymoor Industrial, logged reason "lost to competitor". Deal history/notes: strong first two calls, champion went quiet after their VP reorg was announced, one follow-up email got a one-line reply, then nothing; we assumed they picked a competitor. Stage at time of loss: proposal sent, awaiting signature.

Run a real post-mortem, not a rubber-stamp of the logged reason:

1. Test the logged reason "lost to competitor" against strong first two calls, champion went quiet after their VP reorg was announced, one follow-up email got a one-line reply, then nothing; we assumed they picked a competitor — does the evidence actually support it, or does it look like a proxy for something else (the most common example: a deal logged as "lost to competitor" or "budget" that was actually "no decision" — the prospect did nothing rather than actively choosing an alternative)?
2. Identify the earliest point in strong first two calls, champion went quiet after their VP reorg was announced, one follow-up email got a one-line reply, then nothing; we assumed they picked a competitor where this deal was already at risk, even if it didn't look like it then — a specific stage or interaction, not "communication could have been better."
3. Name ONE thing that, if done differently at that point, plausibly changes the outcome — must be specific and actionable, not "should have built more urgency."
4. Name ONE thing that was actually outside our control, so the takeaway isn't "everything was our fault."

Then give me a one-line lesson I could apply to the next deal at a similar stage — the kind of thing worth saying out loud in a pipeline review, not a vague "stay closer to the champion."